United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. Hollander United States District Judge.
Chegini, the self-represented plaintiff, filed suit against a
host of defendants, including Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(“Wells Fargo”), as trustee on behalf of the
holders of the HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-12
(collectively, “Harborview”); Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”); Bank of America, N.A.
(“BANA”); and Mortgage Guaranty Insurance
Corporation ("MGIC"). Id. The dispute
stems from a mortgage loan of $380, 000 obtained by plaintiff
from First Magnus Financial Corporation (“First
Magnus”) in connection with a property located on
Pinecrest Heights Drive in Annandale, Virginia (the
Complaint is 71-pages long. See Id. And, plaintiff
filed 71 exhibits with her Complaint.
Complaint is, at times, difficult to understand.
Nevertheless, it appears that plaintiff asserts four
counts. In Count One, plaintiff claims that her
mortgage is void or voidable because of violations of the
Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et
seq.; the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12
U.S.C. §§ 2601 et. seq.; and fraud. ECF 1,
¶¶ 84-146. In Count Two, plaintiff claims that she
is entitled to rescission under 15 U.S.C. § 1653(i). ECF
1, ¶¶ 147-172. Count Three asserts a claim of
violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1691 et seq. ECF 1, ¶¶
173-224. And, in Count Four, plaintiff asserts a claim under
the Homeowner Protection Act, 12 U.S.C.A. §§ 4901
et seq. ECF 1, ¶¶ 225-259.
motions to dismiss are pending. First, SPS and Harborview
filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF 4.
The motion is supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 4-1) and
exhibits. ECF 4-2 through ECF 4-4. Plaintiff opposes the
motion (ECF 10) and submitted another 18
exhibits. SPS & Harborview have replied. ECF 15.
BANA moved to dismiss the case for lack of venue, pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3), and for failure to state a claim,
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). ECF 17. BANA's motion
is supported by a memorandum of law. ECF 18-1 (collectively,
BANA's Motion). Plaintiff opposes BANA's Motion (ECF
28), with exhibits. ECF 18-1 through ECF 18-5. BANA has
replied. ECF 34.
MGIC filed a motion to dismiss (ECF 18) for failure to state
a claim, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), supported by a
memorandum of law. ECF 18-1. Chegini opposes MGIC's
motion (ECF 27), with exhibits. ECF 27-1 through ECF 27-5.
MGIC replied. ECF 31.
hearing is necessary with respect to the motions.
See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I
conclude that venue is not proper in this Court. Therefore, I
shall transfer the case to the Eastern District of Virginia,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). And, because venue is
improper, I shall not address the remaining motions.
is the owner of the Property. ECF 1, ¶ 9. On or about
October 18, 2006, plaintiff executed a Deed of Trust in favor
of First Magnus and obtained an adjustable rate mortgage in
the amount of $380, 000.00 (“Loan”), with an
initial interest rate of 2.000%, secured by the Property. ECF
1, Ex. 2 (Deed of Trust) at 2. Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) was selected
as the nominee for First Magnus. Id.
about July 20, 2011, MERS executed an assignment of the Deed
of Trust to BAC Home Loans Servicing. ECF 1, Ex. 3.
Thereafter, on August 10, 2012, the Deed of Trust was
assigned from BANA, as the successor by merger to BAC Home
Loans Servicing, to Harborview. See ECF 17-2
(Assignment). SPS is the servicing agent for Wells Fargo. ECF
1, ¶ 10.
to SPS, Harborview, and BANA, plaintiff defaulted in 2009 on
her payment obligations under the Loan. See ECF 4-1
at 1 and ECF 17-1 at 3. BANA states that plaintiff has made
no payments on the loan since 2009. ECF 17-1 at 3. As a
result of the default, plaintiff has faced “numerous
thwarted attempts at foreclosure.” ECF 1, ¶
21. Indeed, Chegini alleges that she “has been
in foreclosure, and under the threat of foreclosure numerous
times and continuously during the last eight years.”
Id. ¶ 104.
22, 2013, plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court for
Fairfax County, Virginia, against Harborview; BANA; and SPS.
See ECF 4-4 (State suit). In her state court
complaint, Chegini asserted fifteen causes of action,
including each of the four causes of action contained in the
case sub judice. See Id. at 2-3. On August
21, 2013, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
See ECF 1 in E.D. Va. Case 1:13-cv-01042-GBL-JFA
(“Va. Case” or “Virginia Case”). On
November 25, 2013, SPS, BANA, and Harborview collectively
moved to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Va.
Case, ECF 39. On December 12, 2013, Judge Gerald Bruce Lee,
to whom the case was assigned, granted defendants' motion
and dismissed the case, without prejudice. See Va.
Case, ECF 43. This suit followed more than three
years later, on March 9, 2017. See ECF 1.
Standard of Review
defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the
plaintiff's choice of venue by way of a motion under Rule
12(b)(3). Section § 1391(b) of 28 U.S.C. provides that
venue is proper in:
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if
all defendants are residents of the State in which the
district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the
action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise
be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district
in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action.
three subsections are often referred to, respectively, as
“residential venue, ” “transactional venue,
” and “fallback venue.” C. Wright & A.
Miller, Federal Practice &Procedure,
(3d ed.) (“Wright & Miller”), § 1304.
The first two subsections are “preferred judicial
districts” for venue, while the third subsection
provides a “fallback option . . . .”
AtlanticMarine Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist.
Court for Western Dist. of Texas, ___ U.S. ___, 134
S.Ct. 568, 578 (2013). Thus, “if no other venue is
proper, venue will lie in any judicial district in which ...